Sam, Mike & Will

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by StubbyNBY:

My Projection

LDE- Thomas, Armstead, Tank
NT- Mitchell, Dial, D.J Jones
DT- Buckner, Blair, Thomas
LEO- Armstead, Lynch, Brooks, Taumoepenu

SAM- Brooks, Harold, Taumoepenu
MIKE- Bowman, Foster, Smith, Armstrong
WILL- Foster, Smith, Armstrong

CB- Robinson, Witherspoon,
CB- Redmond, Johnson, Reaser
Nickel- Williams, Redmond
FS- Ward, Jerome
SS- Reid, Tartt

This makes the most sense although in the end I think Lynch is going to be manning the Elephant(f**k a LEO) with Armstead rotating all over the DL.

Agree...if Arik doesn't start at just one slot, then he plays all over the DL, because the BEST 11 will play. That is one thing you can bet on and he is one of the BEST 11. I just don't see him, Solomon or Buck sitting . No way. Big 3. All play together. What would be really nice is for Pita or one of our new guys , maybe DJ Jones playing the Edge, and becoming a real factor. But first thing Saleh does is get his big 3 on the field and keeps them there. It will probably be hardest to find a spot for Arik, but moving him around may very well be the best answer, Right now, tho, all is just conjecture.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by StubbyNBY:
My Projection

LDE- Thomas, Armstead, Tank
NT- Mitchell, Dial, D.J Jones
DT- Buckner, Blair, Thomas
LEO- Armstead, Lynch, Brooks, Taumoepenu

SAM- Brooks, Harold, Taumoepenu
MIKE- Bowman, Foster, Smith, Armstrong
WILL- Foster, Smith, Armstrong

CB- Robinson, Witherspoon,
CB- Redmond, Johnson, Reaser
Nickel- Williams, Redmond
FS- Ward, Jerome
SS- Reid, Tartt

This makes the most sense although in the end I think Lynch is going to be manning the Elephant(f**k a LEO) with Armstead rotating all over the DL.

Good call! Let's take back our schemes and vocabulary!

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

I fudged up on the cover 2/3 bs lol. Before this thread got derailed, all I was saying in base package.. you can't simply have an option between the SAM and SS depending on if the TE goes up field or not?

A cover 3 is a shallow zone meant to have 8 men down in the box. That leaves the single high safety and two corners who are not in the box.

Depending on the depth of the route the single high safety could even be responsible for the coverage of a TE.

The weakness of a single high is obviously the seam route and an all jet go.

This tries to expose the safety and his ability to cover the whole feild.

Typically teams are successful exposing this unless you have an Earl Thomas.

But to answer your question smoke its a simple zone. So if a player vacates a zone its handed off to another. If its a shallow cross that bends up field 5 guys could be responsible for that coverage as the offensive player passes through each zone.

When you try to specify a certain players coverage assignment vs another player that is usually a man defense.

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by thl408:

Good luck, Hero. I'm out.
Be cool.

in that case, I'm out, too.

I fudged up on the cover 2/3 bs lol. Before this thread got derailed, all I was saying in base package.. you can't simply have an option between the SAM and SS depending on if the TE goes up field or not?

Originally posted by JBrack:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

I fudged up on the cover 2/3 bs lol. Before this thread got derailed, all I was saying in base package.. you can't simply have an option between the SAM and SS depending on if the TE goes up field or not?

A cover 3 is a shallow zone meant to have 8 men down in the box. That leaves the single high safety and two corners who are not in the box.

Depending on the depth of the route the single high safety could even be responsible for the coverage of a TE.

The weakness of a single high is obviously the seam route and an all jet go.

This tries to expose the safety and his ability to cover the whole feild.

Typically teams are successful exposing this unless you have an Earl Thomas.

But to answer your question smoke its a simple zone. So if a player vacates a zone its handed off to another. If its a shallow cross that bends up field 5 guys could be responsible for that coverage as the offensive player passes through each zone.

When you try to specify a certain players coverage assignment vs another player that is usually a man defense.

I got what you're saying, but isn't there zone alignments that have man concepts built in them depending on say for example, my original question...the TE? Cause it seems that's the only person that can exploit a LB covering him. Especially when that LB which is the SAM in this example can be there for more so for run purposes. If your answer is no, zone is zone then fine give the FS the responsibility of the TE that goes up field in base.

This is a spinoff from the current conversation in the Malcolm Smith thread. Thought it'd be a better fit if it was placed here. The topic being, when would the smaller LB (Will) line up on the strongside of the offensive formation? DCs will sometimes do this purposely to provide more balance for run defense, so that the weakside of the formation has some more beef, if the offense is exploiting the weakside with Counter plays.

L= Leo, T = 3tech, N = Nose, E = End
W = Will, M = Mike, S = Sam
Generally, the Will is the smallest LB and the Sam is the biggest LB.

Typical 4-3 Under front:


What happens when the tight end (Y) motions across causing the strongside/weakside designation to swap? Check out the center line. There's now a numbers advantage for the offense on the strongside of the formation (left side of OL).

The defense can adjust by moving to an Over front by shifting the LBs. Now the Will is on the strongside:


There can be times when the defense calls a play in the huddle that has them lining up in an Over front, and purposely places the Will on the strongside:


So that if the offense motions the Y across the formation (below), they can shift to an Under front where every player is in their typical alignments (except for the L and the E):


Anyway, those are a couple instances where the Will is playing on the strongside. I remember watching some clip of an NFL DC whiteboarding and he always played his Will behind the 3tech, no matter if the 3tech was playing on the strongside or weakside, his Will was always behind the 3tech. We'll see how Saleh has his defense adjust to pre-snap motion and how he plays his Will and Sam.

Taken from Eazy_'s post earlier in this thread:
Saleh´s Influences - Studying The Jaguars Defense by Scott Geelan Ninersnation Apr 2, 2017
- 45 percent of their 4-3 defensive looks were 4-3 over looks, 37 percent were 4-3 under looks, 13 percent were bear fronts and the other 5 percent...

good drop th

Originally posted by thl408:
This is a spinoff from the current conversation in the Malcolm Smith thread. Thought it'd be a better fit if it was placed here. The topic being, when would the smaller LB (Will) line up on the strongside of the offensive formation? DCs will sometimes do this purposely to provide more balance for run defense, so that the weakside of the formation has some more beef, if the offense is exploiting the weakside with Counter plays.

L= Leo, T = 3tech, N = Nose, E = End
W = Will, M = Mike, S = Sam
Generally, the Will is the smallest LB and the Sam is the biggest LB.

Typical 4-3 Under front:


What happens when the tight end (Y) motions across causing the strongside/weakside designation to swap? Check out the center line. There's now a numbers advantage for the offense on the strongside of the formation (left side of OL).

The defense can adjust by moving to an Over front by shifting the LBs. Now the Will is on the strongside:


There can be times when the defense calls a play in the huddle that has them lining up in an Over front, and purposely places the Will on the strongside:


So that if the offense motions the Y across the formation (below), they can shift to an Under front where every player is in their typical alignments (except for the L and the E):


Anyway, those are a couple instances where the Will is playing on the strongside. I remember watching some clip of an NFL DC whiteboarding and he always played his Will behind the 3tech, no matter if the 3tech was playing on the strongside or weakside, his Will was always behind the 3tech. We'll see how Saleh has his defense adjust to pre-snap motion and how he plays his Will and Sam.

Taken from Eazy_'s post earlier in this thread:
Saleh´s Influences - Studying The Jaguars Defense by Scott Geelan Ninersnation Apr 2, 2017
- 45 percent of their 4-3 defensive looks were 4-3 over looks, 37 percent were 4-3 under looks, 13 percent were bear fronts and the other 5 percent...

Does having the SS in the box effect this? if so how?

It makes sense that the Will would follow the 3 tech. Keeps things simpler.

Originally posted by spraked:
Does having the SS in the box effect this? if so how?

A SS could reduce the need to shift LBs around when the offense motions, if he's a strong run defender and can fill like a LB would. Otherwise it would depend on the defense's particular playcall/gameplan, which gap the box safety is assigned to, and what the DC wants to happen if the offense's prensnap motion alters the formation. The SS could be anything from the free defender with no gap responsibility, to the force defender, to being assigned an interior gap. So the short answers are 'yes', and 'depends on the playcall'.

Originally posted by spraked:

Does having the SS in the box effect this? if so how?

Good question and great response. Reid/Tartt could go a long ways in keeping the WILL over the 3T a lot no matter where the TE lines up, if Saleh prefers that.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by spraked:

Does having the SS in the box effect this? if so how?

Good question and great response. Reid/Tartt could go a long ways in keeping the WILL over the 3T a lot no matter where the TE lines up, if Saleh prefers that.

Funny thing is I'm in madden thinking mode when I was shifting LBs and DLs on my own cause that made sense but ofcourse I never knew what the principles were called lol(Started playing Madden when I was 9 but never played organized football). Seems like the SS should be placed or be where they think could be the weakest point or where you might have less numbers(bodies). This is a good example, look at Chancellor playing on the LOS.

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
Funny thing is I'm in madden thinking mode when I was shifting LBs and DLs on my own cause that made sense but ofcourse I never knew what the principles were called lol(Started playing Madden when I was 9 but never played organized football). Seems like the SS should be placed or be where they think could be the weakest point or where you might have less numbers(bodies). This is a good example, look at Chancellor playing on the LOS.

All that shifting is to account for numbers and angles in the run game. That SS can be used many ways, at the weakest point being one. The strong safety in this defense can be asked to play like a LB. If he can take on TEs and not get flattened by OL, that's added flexibility to how he can be used.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Funny thing is I'm in madden thinking mode when I was shifting LBs and DLs on my own cause that made sense but ofcourse I never knew what the principles were called lol(Started playing Madden when I was 9 but never played organized football). Seems like the SS should be placed or be where they think could be the weakest point or where you might have less numbers(bodies). This is a good example, look at Chancellor playing on the LOS.

All that shifting is to account for numbers and angles in the run game. That SS can be used many ways, at the weakest point being one. The strong safety in this defense can be asked to play like a LB. If he can take on TEs and not get flattened by OL, that's added flexibility to how he can be used.

For sure. Depends on the offensive personnel. If you have a traditional 1 TE,2 WRs with a FB and RB... I like the SS being a lil to the right and above the SAM.

Also funny they put Tartt at FS instead of shifting Reid to FS. I think that means they dont wanna complicate Reids development at SS and Ward will be back in no time.